Dwight Nichols v. Professional Foreclosure Corp, No. 20-1055 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1055 DWIGHT NICHOLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee on behalf of the FDIC 2013-R2 Asset Trust; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00256-AWA-RJK) Submitted: April 20, 2021 Decided: April 23, 2021 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Lisa Hudson Kim, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lisa Marie Ernest, FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight Nichols appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint alleging fraud in connection with his mortgage contract as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Nichols asserts that $150,000 was deposited into his bank account in 2006 for a mortgage for which he did not apply. A person of ordinary prudence exercising due diligence would have known in 2006 that some fraud may have occurred. Thus, Nichols’ complaint, filed in 2018, is barred by Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations. * See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A); Schmidt v. Household Fin. Corp., 661 S.E. 2d 834, 838-39 (Va. 2008). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nichols v. Prof. Foreclosure Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00256-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We reject Nichols’ assertion that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
